October 13, 2008
Communal Violence in Orissa: Trying to Get a Balanced PictureNews
I’ve never been to Orissa and in general I don’t know much about eastern India outside of Bengal, so sorting out what has been happening in Orissa over the past few weeks is difficult. As I attempt to address this issue, I’m not interested in pointing fingers or arguing with religious zealots; rather, I’m interested in getting a balanced perspective on what is actually happening. (Take a deep breath. Now begin.)
Let’s start out with the New York Times, and focus on some of the basic facts. First, there has been a wave of anti-Christian violence following the vicious murder of a prominent VHP leader, Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, and four associates. Swami Laxmanananda had been an advocate for local Hindus, and had worked against Christian missionaries and conversion in the area. Here is some of what’s followed:
Here in Kandhamal, the district that has seen the greatest violence, more than 30 people have been killed, 3,000 homes burned and over 130 churches destroyed, including the tin-roofed Baptist prayer hall where the Digals worshiped. Today it is a heap of rubble on an empty field, where cows blithely graze. (link)
There has also been violence between Christians and Hindus in five other Indian states — suggesting that what started in Orissa has the potential to turn into a communal bloodbath at the national level.
A local Bajrang Dal leader is quoted in the New York Times as saying that the violence is just a “spontaneous reaction” to the killing of a locally beloved leader, but whether or not that is so it is unclear whether Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati’s murder was motivated by Christian anti-Hindu feeling or a more generalized hostility towards organized religion associated with Maoism and Naxalism, or some mixture of the two (see this). Adding to the confusion, the Times and other news agencies have reported that local Maoists have claimed responsibility (see the Times of India), but last week three Christian tribals were arrested for the killing. According to the Indian Express, the three were in fact Maoists (as I understand it, the majority of Maoists in the area come from Christian backgrounds.).
Not that all that should matter now — the focus should obviously be on stopping any further violence from occurring, and in rectifying the wrongs that have been committed against people on both sides. The murderers of Swami Laxmanananda should go to jail, as should all those who have participated in recriminatory violence against Christians subsequently.
Another vitally important factor is the local element. This is not just a matter of Hindus vs. Christians. According to the Times, there is a pronounced local and tribal element to the polarization of the communities:
Behind the clashes are long-simmering tensions between equally impoverished groups: the Panas and Kandhas. Both original inhabitants of the land, the two groups for ages worshiped the same gods. Over the past several decades, the Panas for the most part became Christian, as Roman Catholic and Baptist missionaries arrived here more than 60 years ago, followed more recently by Pentecostals, who have proselytized more aggressively.
Meanwhile, the Kandhas, in part through the teachings of Swami Laxmanananda, embraced Hinduism. The men tied the sacred Hindu white thread around their torsos; their wives daubed their foreheads with bright red vermilion. Temples sprouted.
Hate has been fed by economic tensions as well, as the government has categorized each group differently and given them different privileges.
The Kandhas accused the Panas of cheating to obtain coveted quotas for government jobs. The Christian Panas, in turn, say their neighbors have become resentful as they have educated themselves and prospered.
Their grievances have erupted in sporadic clashes over the past 15 years, but they have exploded with a fury since the killing of Swami Laxmanananda. (link)
Knowing about the longstanding hostility between the Kandhas and the Panas in this district changes how we might think of this conflict in certain ways. For one thing, the particular configuration of the tribal relationship to “formal” religion means that it’s unfair to say that the Christian Panas are involved with a “foreign” religion, while the Hindu Kandhas have a “local” religion. In fact, both communities have changed, and tribal religious practices before the entry of formal Hinduism may not have looked much like Hinduism at all (I do not know the specifics here, but this is a common observation by anthropologists who have studied tribals; see Kancha Iliah, for starters).
Given all that, in an ideal world, the conflict would remain a local one, sorted out by local police and the courts. Unfortunately, it does not look like that is going to be the case.
Finally, the Times describes one of the most egregious incidents of recriminatory violence that has followed the murder of Swami Laxmanananda, the murder of a priest and gang rape of a nun:
Two nights after his death, a Hindu mob in the village of Nuagaon dragged a Catholic priest and a nun from their residence, tore off much of their clothing and paraded them through the streets.
The nun told the police that she had been raped by four men, a charge the police say was borne out by a medical examination. Yet no one was arrested in the case until five weeks later, after a storm of media coverage. Today, five men are under arrest in connection with inciting the riots. The police say they are trying to find the nun and bring her back here to identify her attackers.
Given a chance to explain the recent violence, Subash Chauhan, the state’s highest-ranking leader of Bajrang Dal, a Hindu radical group, described much of it as “a spontaneous reaction.”
He said in an interview that the nun had not been raped but had had regular consensual sex. (link)
That last bit just takes the cake.
amardeep on October 13, 2008 11:16 AM in News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Nothing more than bullies...when people who are almost 80% of the population start attacking people who are less than 2% of the population, they are nothing more than bullies. Especially when that 2% by and large is known to be very peaceful, at least in the Indian context.
Communal riots in India are almost never spontaneous - they are almost always preceded by planning, money changing hands, and political powers looking the other way.
Horrifying.
i am very appalled and saddened by the violence against christians in india especially towards vulnerable people such as nuns. however i can understand the anger towards missionaries who just pop into a place out of nowhere and start converting poor people. my mom is a desi christian protestant and she is happy being christian but she says that she doesn't approve of missionaries encouraging people to convert. i've seen members of her family employ servants from villages and then convert them to christianity and they felt they had to comply because they were getting so much like food, clothes and also an education. my family did lots of good work like provide education for poor girls who found work afterwards as teachers but they should have let them keep their own religion. also, when i visited delhi, i met many christians from the north east (manipur, mizoram) who felt they were superior to other indians just because of their religion. but i guess all religions are manipulative.
I'm glad you wrote about it (in your measured, mindful way), because I couldn't. I mentioned as much, at the meetup yesterday, when asked why I hadn't posted about it.
They got bored with slaughtering Muslims and so have started on the other 'outsiders'. When they get bored of killing the Christians they'll turn to the Sikhs. When an ideology of purity emerges they will not rest until purity is achieved and that can only be achieved when the impurities have been removed, battered, murdered, intimidated, or taught to hang their heads low to assuage the impulse to 'purify' the motherland. Nazism in all but name. It will never end.
In this particular scenario, over 20% of the district affected is christian, plus have a history of organised violence as Maoists- so to call them a peaceful 2% minority is particularly inaccurate
Additionally, the major grievance has been the fact that all these converted Christians pretend to still remain Hindu so that they can claim state benefits as SC/ST's- thus depriving the other community that is relatively closer to their tribal and indigenous identity of educational and job opportunities
And Kancha Ilaiah is to be discredited because of his extreme hate-filled and inaccurate rantings against Hinduism- just like you have a habit of discrediting any RSS spokesperson because of thier wrong ideology
How can a vegeterian kill?, But the problem is that we have so many chicketarians!
And Kancha Ilaiah is to be discredited because of his extreme hate-filled and inaccurate rantings against Hinduism-
Ok, drop Kancha Ilaiah. Do you agree with my main point -- that many tribal religious practices were, until fairly recently, outside of the spectrum of Hinduism, and that therefore Hinduism is as much a "foreign" religion as is Christianity for many tribals?
For another example, take a look at the way the Toda tribe's religion is described here. The author talks about a process of "Hinduization" that's taken place in the past 50 years -- roughly the same time-frame as the waves of conversion to Christianity.
On the question of reservations, I don't dispute what you're saying, though I don't know the details of what happened here in much depth (I gather the Christian Panas in this district have been able to use the reservations structure for their own economic benefit). But even if so, isn't that more a problem with how the reservations system is structured than it is a reflection of real communal feeling? (And I have repeatedly been critical of the current reservations system, in case you've missed it.)
>>Violence in Orissa: Trying to Get a Balanced Picture
Amardeep,
Unintentionally (I hope), you are making the same mistake as that of the Indian political class.
"Balanced" approach pre-supposes a both event driven and a timely response to the issue. Bereft of either of these characterstics, any discussion of the issue would be anything but balanced.
Let's say you have two kids: You see one of them walking around with a bloody nose, and you don't do anything about it. Days go by and you see the same one walking around with a bloody nose and a limp. Yet you brush it off even though he/she repeatedly complains to you. A few days later, your spouse calls you at work to tell you that your second kid is in the Emergency Room because the first kid slit his/her throat. At that time, you cannot come to the first kid and say: "Let look at this in a balanced manner...". "Too late dad - you had your chance" will be the most likely response.
When Laxmananda was killed, there was no remorse or outcry from the secular class (and predicatbly I did not see SM cover it). This was pretty much the case when the coach on Sabarmati was burnt. Had the retaliatory violence not happened (and it is indeed sad), the incident would have forgotten by now. I'm pretty sure this post would not be on SM.
So the message being sent out to a section of the populace is: Violence works. We listen to your side of the story only when you take the law into your hands.
Pathetic.
M. Nam
Thanks to this post I am trying to dig up and read more on this subject. As I understand the relationship between Hinduism and tribals has been different in the pre- and post- British period in both positive and negative ways. A lot of complications arose once the British arrived since there was a systematic campaign to exploit the natural resources and forest wealth for commercial purposes. This exposed the tribals more to "society", "religion", "exploitation" and "modernization", thereby starting the conflicts. Exposure to society and religion has meant that they have had to adopt the dominant religions competing for influence - Hinduism vs Christianity. Exploitation has lead to rising influence of Maoism. As much there is a lot to blame on modern India/Hinduism for these conflicts, one should not discount the role of British colonial rule in an attempt to understand the historical legacy of the problem for e.g. Forest regulations act in the 1860s, British criminal tribes act of 1871 etc.
9 · Amardeep said
Though I do accept that Hindus may have not have treated the tribals fairly I disagree with the contention that the Hinduism is foreign to tribals and I will get back to this point with more arguments and proper references.
It sounds as if the whole 80% beat up on the 2%. You mean on an average 40 people beat up one sinegle guy.
I hear a lot of people in India , almost always hindus, talking about banning religious conversions which I think is a bad idea. Governments at the state level instead of protecting people practicig their religion seem to be encouraging these stupid ideas. All of this is purely political.
These local Bajrang and maoist "leaders" are simply thugs and these are the guys that need to be dealt with harshly if neccessary. Hinduism has survived major foreign invasions of India. We don't need these thugs to protect it.
Pseudo-communal's comment reflect the issue properly.
BJP is preparing for upcoming elections. They need issues that every Hindu is passionate about. This time it is not Ram Janma Bhoomi/Babri-Masjid. They tried their best with a smilar issue 'Sethu Samudram'. But there is no passion, as the villain there is lower class southie Hindus and an ethiest Hindu(?) Chief Minister. They have their cards lined up.
1) Anger amongst middle/lower class Hindus against reservation for OBC/SC/ST
2) Portraying muslims of India as jihadists
3) Success story of Hindutva in Gujarat
So chill out Christians! You got caught in the cross hairs when they were working on their number one issue. There is only one thing that every Indian is passionate about. BJP has to use the religious card to win.
When Laxmananda was killed, there was no remorse or outcry from the secular class (and predicatbly I did not see SM cover it). This was pretty much the case when the coach on Sabarmati was burnt. Had the retaliatory violence not happened (and it is indeed sad), the incident would have forgotten by now. I'm pretty sure this post would not be on SM.
MoorNam, The problem with your metaphor of the negligent parent is quite obvious -- we at Sepia Mutiny cannot be equated with "parents" of India's various ethno-religious groups, with either authority or influence to affect the course of events. We are, rather, more like cousins living overseas, looking in with concern and a sincere hope that people can get along. If you want to go after India's governing classes or civil society for failing to address this adequately in time -- in this case, starting with the government of Orissa -- be my guest. Though it should be noted that police have actually got hold of several of the alleged assassins, as well as several of the thugs who incited the riots that led to the rape of the nun mentioned above.
My colleagues may have their own reasons for not addressing this until now. My own reason for waiting until now is, I was waiting for a perspective that gave a sense of clarity as to what is happening. I am not writing to "protest the attacks on Christians"; this is not a protest post (note my title is simply, "communal violence in Orissa"). Rather, I am writing as an exercise in gaining understanding, and with a thought of sharing that understanding with people who may be interested.
>>My own reason for waiting until now is, I was waiting for a perspective that gave a sense of clarity as to what is happening. I am not writing to "protest the attacks on Christians"; this is not a protest post (note my title is simply, "communal violence in Orissa").
Sorry, but this doesn't sell with me (and I suspect, with a whole lot more folks). Does my hypothesis stand: If the retaliatory violence had not happened, would anyone even remember Laxamananada (who I think should have been given a state funeral)? Would this post be on SM?
As far as the tribal lifestyle goes - you have a point. There's been Hinduisation, and that's not too different from Sikh males choosing to be clean shaven in the last couple of decades (something that you blogged about as I recall).
M. Nam
Exploitation has lead to rising influence of Maoism. As much there is a lot to blame on modern India/Hinduism for these conflicts, one should not discount the role of British colonial rule in an attempt to understand the historical legacy of the problem
The rise of Naxalism has more to do with Central/State Governance after independence than British rule. There may be some caste politics as a second order effect but the first order effect has more to do with the size of states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh prior to Jharkand and Chattisgarh being hived off. Property rights of tribal farmers were were routinely usurped by politicians from state capitals like Patna and Bhopal. The IAS officers' cadre who are the topmost bureaucrats of the district are routinely transferred every two years and most of them consider these postings as a means to get a posting at the state capital. In fact, the IAS officer is the head of law enforcement and revenue collection within the district.
MoorNam:
You have hit the nail on the head. The logic is so simple and so obvious - but somehow it escapes the "liberal/secular" types of India.
If SM has a lot of visits, it can influence opinion.
I think the situation in Orissa is different than the attacks on other states. I believe the clashes in Orissa has more to do with who is garnering the reservation benefits.
17 · amaun said
Not completely true. Much of Indian constitution borrowed all the laws and regulations from the British era. Even the IAS is nothing but the legacy of the Indian civil servants. So there is definitely a legacy issue here that is intermingled with the politics post-independence.
Huh.. did you mean upper class Hindus?. who do you think OBCs are?.
Does my hypothesis stand: If the retaliatory violence had not happened, would anyone even remember Laxamananada (who I think should have been given a state funeral)? Would this post be on SM?
MoorNam, who really cares? Why do *you* care?
As we've said a million times, SM is just a blog written by individuals. It's not a newspaper, and we get to things if and when we can. Secondly, if you're so convinced that we're "biased against Hindus", why not go read "Seriously Sandeep" or "Mutiny.in" or some other blog that is more to your taste? Why are you still here, repeating the same complaints, after 3+ years?
My goal is to understand the current violence and characterize it accurately. You have never even suggested that I haven't done so. Rather, you are making the rather tortured argument that the fact that I'm *now* attempting a balanced perspective is itself a sign of being unbalanced.
Take a deep breath, and look in the mirror.
Amardeep,
Thanks for your timely response. I agree with Narendra Modi(he brought this up in the NIC meet) about the root cause of all these recent problems being fundamentally economical grievances in nature being couched in terms of other ways to construct identities like religion. I also agree and appreciate your view on how fundamentally wrong these reservation policies have been structured.
If you also consider the Karnataka tension, it is primarily directed against the new fundamental evangelisation by some new fangled groups rather than the established Catholic Church. Even the Church there recognised the aggresive evangelical nature of these new groups and recognised that they promote hatred.
Ans Hinduism really isn't a foreign religion unlike the Pentecosts. Of course academics like you who have this cultural anthropology and sociology background should be familiar with the tons of arguments out there about how very difficult it is to really provide an authoritative description about standard Hindu practices- since essentially its an unorganised religion. In fact you probably agree that religion as a definition has essentially been imported onto Hindu practices as an external construct by Abrahamic religions and their historical interactions with India- often and primarily in order to convert people.
In this specific case, Hindu proslyetisation is essentially a response to the Christian missionary style of working. Im surprised at seeing you and other secular type people being so against it. Isnt your approval of Christian missionary activities centered around the fact that they do good work in promoting modern education and all among poor inorant tribals, and that if Hindus have any problem with this they should do the same good work? I think this is increasingly a case of damn if you do, damn if you dont.
Sorry for the typos and inadvertent spelling errors
Additionally the reason why Pentecostal and other fundamental evangelical forms of Christianity are foreign are because they all preach hatred against a lot of mainstream Hindu practises- and arent we all supposed to uphold and respect religious diversity as one of the main ideals of the Indian state? Its like live and let live, but IMHO these sects dont do that by their contniuous tirades against "idol-worship" and false gods and so on. How can you not categorize as them as preaching hatred when according to them, you are going to Hell as infidels if you dont follow their beliefs?
Again this is not against the vast majority of regular mainstream Indian Christian sects
24 · Pseudo-communal said
I think it is a problem of competition which a socialistic, poor country thriving more on family and community network on survival doesn't know how to handle. The state and govt. apparatus is identifid with the majority religion because ultimately the fact is Hindus are a majority. Apart from politics and bureacratic ineffeciencies, the state is severely handicapped in terms of resources and uniform allocations. If access to food, education and decent living is dictated by community, caste and religion etc. then it is competition taking communal color.
You can't have clear separation between church and state in the remote hinterlands in the sense educated, urban middle-class liberals talk of secularism. This is another source of problem with governance in such areas.
>>My goal is to understand the current violence and characterize it accurately
Why only the current(retaliatory) violence? Or violence that is similiar to the current one? Why the selective profiling? How different are you from the airport security guard who pulls aside turbanned/bearded people for questioning?
>>Why are you still here, repeating the same complaints, after 3+ years?
I like SM!! It makes me laugh...most of the time.
M. Nam
Why are you still here, repeating the same complaints, after 3+ years?
You don't kick out the civil but tiresome uncleji from your party, he's part of the decoration.
27 · MoorNam said
and thanks for returning the favor by making us laugh.. all the time.
Great post at #28.
24 · Pseudo-communal said
.
If you also consider the Karnataka tension, it is primarily directed against the new fundamental evangelisation by some new fangled groups rather than the established Catholic Church. Even the Church there recognised the aggresive evangelical nature of these new groups and recognised that they promote hatred.
Most of the violence was directed at Catholic churches and proves that the claim of aggressive evangelization is just an excuse to terrorise minorities. Last year the riots in south kanara was against muslims.
who are you people?
Ponniyin Selvan (#20)is right in his assessment. Both the Panas (who are/were SCs) and Kandhas are poor. The district (formerly Phulbani) was the least accessible and least developed until it was split. Boudh became a separate district with its feudal roots -- which is a nice town on the banks of the mighty Mahanadi River before the river enters the 14-mile gorge Satakosia. But Phulbani town and other areas became Kandhamal. The Panas and the Kandhas are after the quotas and Kandhas demand that the Panas who have converted to Christianity should not benefit from the quotas which should go to them. In Indian law, muslims and christians do not qualify for reservation quotas as they do not have caste system. Apparently, there is only one formal conversion record in Kandhamal to Christianity. So, there is resentment among Kandhas that their jobs are going to Panas who also benefit from the missionaries. The aggressive conversion to Christianity in the last few decade also brought Hindu resentment who are supporting the tribal Kandhas. Hindu mobs are working along with Kandhas. Hindus and Kandhas lived far from each other - but got along as one needed the other for various causes. Kandhas sold their turmeric, bamboo, fruits (Kendu, and others) to Hindus and in return bought other things from markets along with bidi, tobacco, etc. Panas were doing menial jobs for Hindu landlords. Now, after the quotas were set, each of the two groups is becoming more assertive for its share of the pie. Politicians (either Sc or ST) are also exploiting for vote.
Orissa chief minister Naveen Patnaik is not like Modi. He is a different stock (50% Oriya and 50% Punjabi) and grew up in very liberal environment. He is a liberal author. Incidentally, Gita Mehta and Sonny Mehta are his sister and bother-in-law and he is the son of Biju Patnaik. He would like to see this come to an early end. However, the local police and administration are showing sympathy to Kandhas. There are also numerous non-Christian Panas. Kandhas demand that they need to recount who are Chistians and the Pana Christians should be taken of the SC list. It is a fair demand for them. However, everyone is so poor that it does not help much. The district is rich in timber, sandal wood etc, but not so rich in mining resources. There is no rail head to the district. They need to develop the district and bring more jobs so that both Kandhas and Panas can move forward.
Too bad it has become the front page news of NY Times. I feel sorry for Naveen Patnaik (CM). The media always puts the story to suit to its intent. But, we are talking about people who do not have food for next week. The NREGA has helped little, but much of the money has been siphoned off to crooks signing on to dead people's name. Please visit this:
http://www.cefsindia.org/
CEFS director Parshuram Rai wrote to PM Manmohan Singh to fire the IAS officers in Orissa dealing with these projects (the state cannot fire them - can only transfer them from place to place-- they "Indian" civil servants - probably most uncivil).
In Orissa, getting an OBC status is not difficult. If you are living in a village and had fought for the cause of the state (fighting against the Brits during a mutiny called "Paika Bidroha" or during independence), you may qualify for OBC status. That does not bring much food to the table. In my village, most are OBCs - but all are Kshyatriyas.
The problem is more complex than that you read. Unless you visit the place and spend some time, you will not know the exact picture. Poverty - poverty - everywhere.
If you have connection to the Prime Minister’s office – please tell him to set aside money for the development of this district. Connect Berhampur to Sambalpur via Phulbani and that way the goods from Andhra can flow to Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, and western Orissa in that route. Development of a paper mill might help local economy. Naveen is doing his best to bring industry to the state. He does not have talented and dedicated folks around him. He has sacked half a dozen ministers over the past 8 years and arrested many many crooks. But, there is no end to the problem. He will (most likely) be elected as CM again – 3rd time. Congress does not have a chance to win in Orissa. He is burdened with the charge of several important departments (Home, Water Resources, Forest & Environment, Information and PR, and Sports and Youth Services). There is tremendous amount of World Bank investment in water sector. Most people are happy that he is looking after that department. Shivraj Patil (Home Minister) came to Orissa and visited the district. He was not happy at the situation, but did not support the demand of Lalu and others to sack Naveen and declare President’s rule. Apparently, Lalu shouted at him for that. The violence must stop now – at the same time something must be worked out for lasting peace.
I beg you here – please do something to help Orissa’s poor (not donating money - but mobilizing the bureaucrats at Delhi/Bhubaneswar.
Pseudo-communal, i didn't see amardeep express opposition to hindu conversion efforts. what was described in the ny times article wasn't really conversion (i.e., at the point of the sword?). one can grant much of what you say about the obnoxiousness of evangelical christians, most of us live in the united states and experience their asinine behavior first hand, but that being said, one can also object to cutting someone's throat then and there because they insult your mother. the proper response to evangelical obnoxiousness coupled with material inducements is to offer mainstream hindu outreach with material inducements.
and yes, the *specific* issue here has very local parameters. i think people should be cautious about over-generalizing to all of india.
this puts the dumb preacher into perspective too....
^Sunny
Thats why the Bajrang Dal and VHP people spoke out against the violence and damage to the Catholic Church and denied that they were behind it. Of course conspiracy theorists suggest that the Congress was behind the violence in Karnataka as an election ploy to instill the fear that any BJP government cant really be trusted in terms of being secular and of course, this also gives them an excuse to impose President's Rule on yet another state that elected opposition parties into power.
Notice how no warnings under Article 355 are issued to Congress governed states like Andhra Pradesh and Assam in times of communal flare-ups but are certainly issued to BJP governed states with the added threat of imposing Article 356.
Also think about it, the Sangh Parivar people know any acts of mindless violence is always extremely bad PR for them, especially in an election year. They already got burnt by the negative opinions in the 2004 elections. They dont stand to gain anything by raising up this issue when there are bigger emotive issues handed to them on a platter by the UPA government including Kashmir fiasco, terrorism, inflation and economy, interference with the armed forces,etc etc. The only people who really stand to gain by this is the UPA government, which is desperately trying to deflect media attention from the ineptitude and failure of its Home Ministry.
Why only the current(retaliatory) violence? Or violence that is similiar to the current one? Why the selective profiling? How different are you from the airport security guard who pulls aside turbanned/bearded people for questioning?
Actually, I was very careful to indicate that I condemn both the original murder (I called it "vicious" in my post), and the recriminatory violence. I brought up the questions about who the killers were and what their motives might have been because there is the possibility that this "recriminatory" violence is misdirected. Local Christians are being targeted and forcibly converted (or raped and killed), but the real culprits were motivated more by Maoist ideology than putative fanatical Christianity.
The new violence is on a much bigger scale than the original murder -- 3000 homes burned to the ground, displacing, at minimum, 15000 people -- so one could argue that it might merit louder denunciation and broader action from government and police. It is not the local Hindu community that has been forced to live as refugees in temporary housing in Bhubaneswar. But, again, I'm not really interested in "weighing" different acts of violence; I condemn them all. I'm more interested in the question of causes, context, and how to rectify the situation.
Also think about it, the Sangh Parivar people know any acts of mindless violence is always extremely bad PR for them, especially in an election year. They already got burnt by the negative opinions in the 2004 elections.
am i ignorant to think this is just wrong? i thought the 2002 killings in gujarat were *good* for modi's electoral prospects, and the loss in 2004 was due to rising prices of basic food stuffs which hit the non-elites hard.
razib: >>the proper response to evangelical obnoxiousness coupled with material inducements is to offer mainstream hindu outreach with material inducements.
But that's exactly what Swami Laxmananda was doing, and that's why he was eliminated. As someone else said, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If the government had acted swiftly after his death by giving him an honorable State funeral (like what was given to Mother Teresa), with Manmohan Singh and other people from the Central Govt present, and if this were followed up by swift arrest of the culprits, none of this violence would have happened. Instead, the news was completely ignored and when stuff hit the fan, they tried to make it sound as if the maoists had killed him. As if people are stupid enough to buy that!
M. Nam
38 · razib said
you are actually spot on. no, it's worked great for modi, as it did for advani and the bjp after the rath yatra. communalism sells.
this kind of perennial low-level internecine strife, which periodically explodes like in this situation, and class warfare in non-urban india is one of the biggest things that will hold india back from realizing the potential of its human capital in coming years. pity we have vile and spineless leaders that encourage this.
moornam, the "christian" thing would have been to ignore the violence and love one's enemies and become even stronger in the faith & works :-) i mean, hindus do know that the church rose up from the blood of the martyrs, right?*
* this assertion is probably empirically wrong. see r. stark's the rise of christian or r. lane fox's pagans and christians.
this kind of perennial low-level internecine strife, which periodically explodes like in this situation, and class warfare in non-urban india is one of the biggest things that will hold india back from realizing the potential of its human capital in coming years.
oh come, don't you know about the rage and fury which non-cantonese have toward the cantonese because they got their special shenzhen economic zone? why, i heard thousands of peasants go to guandong and murder cantonese all the time to vent their rage. that's how the chinese government, which is dominated by people from north and west china who were excluded from the economic booms in the southeast keep a grip on pure, exploiting the massive inter-regional chasms in wealth. that's why china has such low growth rates, all that resentment....
How different are you from supporters of Islamic terrorism who apolgise and rationalise the slaughter of innocent people by the particular fascist murdering scum that they feel empathy for?
Furthermore, how can a post on a blog be compared to someone being racially profiled at an airport? There is no comparison between the two situations.
don't take moornam's posts too seriously in terms of their depth. they're aimed at the argument immediately in front of them; there really isn't any deep logic.
some research on laxmanananda seems to indicate that his hands might have not been entirely clean either (link sympathetic to rss). none of this justifies murder, but this bickering and strongarming of tribals by conflicting forces is truly disgusting.
> mainstream hindu outreach
The problem with Maoist is not a law & order problem. It is a problem of poverty and development. Now when govt. fails for whatever reasons private institutions take their place because it is a matter of survival of the people. Note there is no religion or culture in an empty stomach. It just so happens that in the eastern part of India due to the legacy of the British rule there are a lot of missionaries that have been active right from pre-independence times. And thats how the religious fanatacism got mixed with the problem of development in the east. I am not sure whether this is the case with southern/western parts of India like mumbai-goa, karnataka and pondicherry where there are sizeable number of christians too. The reasons for trouble here maybe for different reasons.
Note there is no religion or culture in an empty stomach.
better starving hindus than plump christians! (*sarcasm*)
Rajan Parrikar's eloquently worded riposte to Amardeep circa a year or two back comes to mind when I read the to and fro between Amardeep and his allies vs Moornam and his. Amardeep, you might want to consider what Rajan meant--and I believe he had a valid point, maybe more--and how it aligns with Moornam's point(s).
Here's something to give pause to those that would castigate Hinduism and Hindu society and call it violent, fanatic, intolerant, etc. The empirical facts speak otherwise. If Indian society, roughly 80%+ Hindu, was indeed intolerant and violent toward other faiths and persuasions we'd not have the healthy representation of Sikhs, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, etc. that we see in India today (and have seen all through history.) We'd have seen what prevails everywhere else: elimination of or reduction to a token minority of other faiths. Compare Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, the assorted European countries, etc. where, over history, a single faith more or less replaced what was practiced earlier.
Someone mentioned that Muslims don't avail of the Indian quota system as applied to universities, etc. I'd ask them to consider what transpires in Tamil Nadu and other states where certain Muslim sects (e.g., Deccani Muslims, Mappilas, etc.) are considered "Backward" and eligible to the very quota system that some Hindus are ineligible. My close friend, an affluent Bohra muslim, paid Rs 50 (and I accompanied him in that transaction) back in 1980 to be certified as a "Deccani muslim" and thereby gain admission to engineering college. I understand there is a louder clamor these days by Muslims for wider consideration for the privileges of reservation.
Looking ahead I predict the clashes will get worse. Hinduism will likely need to develop evangelical and outreach efforts to balance out what we see of Christianity and Islam (and that'll require financial wherewithal, as the latter are abundantly funded by agencies and organizations outside India). Or--slim chance, this--the govt will have to step in and enforce processes and procedures governing conversions. I'd personally prefer to see the Christian missions required to convert a Muslim for every Hindu; the reaction of the Muslims will suffice to tell a story about "easy pickings"...
49 · Mira said
if hinduism is so compelling, why can't you sell people on it based on its own merits, rather than coercing other people out of the religion
racketmarket in some way, shape, or form?i say this as a hindu who is sick and tired of seeing extremist elements hijack the public opinion of my religion.
That's right. Even now, the situation looks like god-send for BJP to capitalise on. You had a well respected swami (who is from the low caste, and had a good name for working with the tribals) killed and the usual noises emanating from the so called "secular media" and the "secular politicians" completely ignoring the murder of that magnitude. It is surreal. Even when they condemn the murder of Swami, it is kinda similar to what we see in #46 (even though he is evil and associated with RSS, he is not to be killed). That plays right into the hands of BJP / Modi. The BJP too condemns attack on Christians even if they are indulging in fraudulous conversions. It is like watching a drama unfold and repeat itself every now and then in India.
Better a plump Christian than a plump Hindu!! (even more sarcasm)
Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, the assorted European countries, etc. where, over history, a single faith more or less replaced what was practiced earlier.
you do know that malaysia is 40-45% non-muslim right? probably not :-) and your qualification *over history* for europe is very critical. and according to the 2000 census indonesia is 86% muslim. not too much higher than india is hindu. these specific numerical details don't rebut or really address your overall point. hinduism is certainly on the whole a tolerant religion. that being said, over the past few years there has been a subset which has not taken too kindly to the unbelievers amongst them.
is it as bad as the 30 years war? or as bad as iran. no!!! but frankly, shifting the focus from this specific barbaric case by using comparisons with past european intolerance or the savagery which is normative in much of the muslim world speaks volumes. i guess it's not as bad as muslim wackos explaining how for the 7th century islam was really a feminist religion....
51 · Ponniyin Selvan said
dont know what you are alluding to, but i mean it unlike the latter party. and i have no idea what fraudulous, or even fraudulent, conversions mean .
my point is that even if he was inciting destruction of churches and creating unrest in the community (as that article alludes to), that is not grounds for murder. i dont know whether the state stepped in at all over all these years when unrest was brewing.
orissa is a very impoverished state with bad governance, so my guess is that the govt just let the situation escalate out of control.
Better a plump Christian than a plump Hindu!! (even more sarcasm)
which is a basic non-response, since you should know i don't give jack-sh*t whatever primitive idol the superstitious bow down too. if a person wants to advance their lot in life i don't begrudge them mouthing superstitious gibberish if it gets them there; i'm not in their shoes.
Ooops. I forgot to add...
"Here's something to give pause to those that would castigate Hinduism and Hindu society and call it violent, fanatic, intolerant, etc. The empirical facts speak otherwise. If Indian society, roughly 80%+ Hindu, was indeed intolerant and violent toward other faiths and persuasions we'd not have the healthy representation of Sikhs, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, etc. that we see in India today (and have seen all through history.) We'd have seen what prevails everywhere else: elimination of or reduction to a token minority of other faiths. Compare Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, the assorted European countries, etc. where, over history, a single faith more or less replaced what was practiced earlier." Hindu society has its disgruntled and violent elements and I'd argue they have had less of an influence than their counterparts elsewhere and the facts on the ground bear testimony to that.
that's right, But Malaysia and Indonesia call themselves Islamic countries and are members of OIC, No luck for India though, it is searching for an utopian secular identity..
I'm not sure if the Christian missionaries in Orissa were the same ones, but this link gives you a background on the Karnataka scene -
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?artid=oqi6n5w6kGE=&Title=What+made+Hindus+angry+in+Karnataka&SectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&MainSectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&SEO=NEW+LIFE&SectionName=m3GntEw72ik=
If i remember right, the Catholic Church in Mangalore also condemned this kind of 'conversion' propagated by the New Life missionaries.
speaking of conversions of indian tribals, happy columbus day everyone!
But Malaysia and Indonesia call themselves Islamic countries and are members of OIC, No luck for India though, it is searching for an utopian secular identity..
look, if you can get muslims not to go buck-wild and circumcise all the kufar in sight you should count yourself ahead, right? i remember a really liberal friend defending appeasing muslims by analogy to a the r-tarded kid who should be patted on the back for sorting color cubes right. if hindus use muslims as a reference to argue for their religious tolerance it's like thinking that you had a good day at school cuz you didn't crap your pants. people should have higher standards. in civilized countries people don't kill each other over religion, you just have the r-tarded sector mouthing off.
granted, this looks way more complicated than just religion in terms of the causal factors.
You know what the BJP claims, even if the christians are inciting destructions of idols within their homes and creating unrest in families by converting some folks in the family, it is not grounds for violence against them. Does that sound similar to your claim ?.
12 · Brigette Gabriel said
Though I do accept that Hindus may have not have treated the tribals fairly I disagree with the contention that the Hinduism is foreign to tribals and I will get back to this point with more arguments and proper references.
Lets for the sake of an academic argument disregard the fact the Hinduism by nature has been assimilationist and perhaps revisionist wrt to all the kinds of unorganized religious practices in the sub-continent whether you want to call it mainstream Hinduism or not. If you just take time into account Christianity entered India with Saint Thomas in Kerala in 1st century, Portugese & French colonization and British colonization. To the extent that they intermingled with the local tribes you are right that Christianity was not alien to the tribes. But any cursory reading of Hindu mythology & cultural traditions clearly reveals the complex interactions going back ages to the Aryan invasion days. Based on that reason one cannot conclude that Hinduism is foreign to the tribals. Now there have been both positive and negative (casteism, poverty/undervelopment) interactions of tribes with mainstream Hindusim & state/govt. and that is being exploited by both sides.
61 · Ponniyin Selvan said
no.
look, here's a non-white standard for behaving in a civilized manner when it comes to religion:
Largest Buddhist Protest in Decades Rocks South Korea
south korea is 25% buddhist and 25% christian (split between protestant majority and catholic minority) and 50% non-religious. the christians are overrepresented in the social elites. there's some tension and discrimination, and definite bias. but people don't go buck-wild murdering each other. protest. don't riot.
Based on that reason one cannot conclude that Hinduism is foreign to the tribals.
i think a lot of the ST and SC activists might claim that *'brahmanical' hinduism* is an alien religion.
That's right. India has long ways to go in that area. I just pointed out the differences between Malaysia, Indonesia and India.
ok.
Razib might want to see how much of what he said about Moornam--reacting, not much deep logic behind his statements--applies to himself and his postings. He seems to agree with the core of what I said earlier and then has to toss in a trivial fact or two to illustrate his disagreement.
Around the world, and certainly around India, those that initially welcomed or tolerated certain faiths and persuasions discovered (if at all they did) that what they welcomed or tolerated now had replaced what they had before (for good or bad; by then one had no choice but to admit it was for the good!) so who is to judge those that are preventing it from happening in their own backyard today? One can't engage in evangelism or attempt to convert a Muslim in any of the surrounding Muslim countries, the penalty being death. Several of India's neighbors have seen their minorities more or less disappear (and this, Razib, includes Indonesia, where if you take out Bali and some outlying islands, home to frequent Muslim-Christian violence, you have a 95% Muslim dominated country) and perhaps that explains why the focus on India amongst the evangelicals.
Either we bend over and align with the missionaries. Or we have a system that emulates what has been arrived at in the industrialised countries (incl Japan and I hesitate to include S. Korea here...another day/topic), which India can't afford but can dream about. And meanwhile what we will have is an increasing number of the anxious and worried and angry and violent that can be easily manipulated like putty by the political forces.
The situation that worries me is when the majority of Hindus become
Rajan Parrikar's eloquently worded riposte to Amardeep circa a year or two back comes to mind when I read the to and fro between Amardeep and his allies vs Moornam and his. Amardeep, you might want to consider what Rajan meant--and I believe he had a valid point, maybe more--and how it aligns with Moornam's point(s).
Mira, are the comments you're thinking of the ones Rajan Parikkar made on this post back in 2006?
If so... well... I'll let readers decide for themselves whether or not Rajan Parikkar had a point when he accused Amartya Sen of being a bed-wetter (!), whether such a comment can in fact be described as an "eloquent riposte," and finally, whether any of that adds to this discussion.
68 · Mira said
I believe aligning with the missionaries would require you to lie down...
Several of India's neighbors have seen their minorities more or less disappear (and this, Razib, includes Indonesia, where if you take out Bali and some outlying islands, home to frequent Muslim-Christian violence, you have a 95% Muslim dominated country) and perhaps that explains why the focus on India amongst the evangelicals.
it's totally specious to compare a savage majority to a savage minority. yes, muslims in pakistan and bangladesh behave savagely to minorities, so the hindu majority in india should do the same???
btw, you do know that muslims in indonesia can convert to christianity and hinduism, right? hundreds of thousands of javanese muslims converted to hinduism afte 1965.
follow up on the previous comment: i don't want to suggest that india's religious minorities behave like muslims in pakistan do to non-muslims :-) that was written too quickly (not that the non-muslims are gone, the sunni and shia are tearing into each other)
If the book ' satya darshini' has even a slight bit of truth in it, then there is a good case for blasphemy here (i'm unclear if the free-speech clause will hold here, dont think most ppl will buy it in a 'conversion context' and especially not in india for sure).
And seeing that even a book or a movie, fiction at that, like satanic verses or da vinci code, was immediately banned as being offensive to muslims/christians in 'secular' india - i can understand why some hindus are absolutely pissed off that noone's acting on these 'conversion agents' and their continuous diatribe (not that it justifies the violence in anyway).
But again, thats the way free speech/secularism is crudely defined and practiced in india - cant fault the people who take advantage of it (juggles between all the communities) nor not sympathise with the victims at any particular point ( again, everyone's got their share - but here the intelligensia/media/govt does tend to paint the minorities as victims more often).
I'm sure the localisation and the violence in Orissa is much more complicated with tribes, re-conversions, maoists, etc. but isnt such a crude, malleable definition of a constitutional principle not setting the stage for all these violent action/reaction violence?
I suspect it does, but again,am not sure if i can conclusively say anything.
And seeing that even a book or a movie, fiction at that, like satanic verses or da vinci code, was immediately banned as being offensive to muslims/christians in 'secular' india - i can understand why some hindus are absolutely pissed off that noone's acting on these 'conversion agents' and their continuous diatribe (not that it justifies the violence in anyway).
i would agree with this. it does seem like indian secularism is obsequiously accommodationist in a way which only inflames. but i guess elites need their vote banks, they're never gonna be the ones raped & murdered.
p.s. i have muslim fundamentalist relatives who went to gujarat after the riots. all the muslim fundies were really happy about what happened because they never saw such a boon of new recruits and the segregation from hindus was what they wanted in the first place. really disturbing to see my uncle grinning broadly about the outcome of the riots.
69 · Amardeep said
I believe this is a honest misunderstanding. Rajan, as was his wont, was lurking around a sleeping Sen trying to see if the allegations held water, when, in a dream, Sen called out to his father, "Ashu Ashu". However, a life-long lisp due to a bout of mouth cancer during Amartya's undergraduate days only resulted in his saying "Su Su", hence Rajan's misconception.
69 · Amardeep said
That comment sure puts the que??? in eloquent.
"p.s. i have muslim fundamentalist relatives who went to gujarat after the riots. all the muslim fundies were really happy about what happened because they never saw such a boon of new recruits and the segregation from hindus was what they wanted in the first place. really disturbing to see my uncle grinning broadly about the outcome of the riots."
I don't want to comment on your uncle, but i have had interaction with several muslims after Gujrat and the overwhelming sentiment wasn't rejoice, but fear! Don't generalize exceptions please. India accommodates all religions in a way that is not seen in the west. The special privilges for religious institutions extend to all religions including hinduism. Trying to instill insecurity in a place where hindus are the majority and power is at the very least reprehensible.
Keywords: cursory, mythology, complex
The Staines Case and verdict back in 2003 is relevant recent history. Also, interesting comparison to be explored between the "success" of missionaries working in India's Northeast states (where Christianity has taken a strong hold among the ethnic populations) and Orissa.
Citing Kancha Illiah in anything other than a study on the lack of standards of Indian Universities or the chemical structure of sh!t is surprising.
To draw a suitable scholarly comparison, I could quote Ratzel towards making a case for justifying the holocaust...
It is even more relevant because, Illiah and his ilk want just that (a holocaust) for anyone who DARES to still categorize themselves as a Brahmin(you know the racist group,that has to be blamed-for-all-India's-Ills, one-of-those-Indian-to-be-condemned-thoroughly-in-order-to-preserve-second-generation-American-status thinger about India)...
Amardeep, Rajan had as much a point in accusing Amartya of being a bed-wetter as you had in questioning whether Tunku had a screw loose. All in context, mind you. And, what you did not point out is that Rajan withdrew his comment and so did you. And that you didn't do so raises questions about intellectual honesty. Ahh, if this were a discussion in an academic environment...
Rajan made several other points--others, I suggest you read his follow-ups in the link Amardeep included--and I emphasize how pertinent they remain to this current discussion. Since it seems evident Amardeep took umbrage at Rajan's tone (and was Amardeep's any better?) and missed the gist of what Rajan said and enough time has gone by and still it hasn't sunk in it's unlikely Amardeep and those in his camp will see what I said at the outset:"...Amardeep, you might want to consider what Rajan meant--and I believe he had a valid point, maybe more--and how it aligns with Moornam's point(s)."
Hinduism is a religion that does not naturally proselytize (the ghar vaapsi rituals are a reactionary movement) To define the Hindu religion itself is a tough task,as it is not a rigid, fixed, monotheistic faith built on a framework of dogma, commandments and the holy book. It is a system of belief that has evolved in the Indian subcontinent over thousand of years of assimilation of the philosophy, metaphysics, rituals and traditions of innumerable tribes, clans and ethnicities. 'Brahminism,'as some call it, is one aspect of it, but so is tantricism, animism and atheistic streams of thought. At the core of the faith is the belief in the sacredness of the land of Bharatvarsha (a lot different from Akhanda Bharat).It's epics, myths, avataras and holy places are all based in the land, and provide a common, if fragile thread that holds the Indian society together against the opposing forces of disparate ethnicities, languages and cultures.
Conversion of people to non Indic faiths changes some of the variables in this complex dynamics by orientating the convert towards a new axis based in a land far away from the indic center of gravity.There is a significant population of Indian Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, who are native, assimilated and indistinguishable from any Hindu citizen of India. These are old societies which have developed an Indic narrative to their cultures while having lent their flavour to hinduism (Sufi and Catholic saints, Sai Baba and many more).
The new wave of conversion is a different kettle of fish. You can only go so far in a deeply religious country if you seek to aggressively harvest souls, denigrating the majority religion in the process. That upsets the prevailing social equilibrium. Indian society is changing (I think moving towards intolerance, mirroring the global trend), and with the examples of Kashmir Valley and the recently Christian North East in front of us, fuels the backlash of the Ultra Right.The green flags waved in Kashmir, the land of Kashyapa, are enough to send alarm bells ringing in most Indian minds.
The Bajrang dal vandals are idiots and criminals, and should be dealt with strictly, but the larger question remains on the morality of conversion and it's impact on the larger national interest. I think the way out is by Hindu organisations to organise themselves and level the playing field.
82 · Lupus Solitarius said
The example of Hindu ULFA is ignored since it violates the narrative of secessionist movements in India being driven by religious hostility.
82 · Lupus Solitarius said
dont worry, india's aggressive population replenishment program will ensure that you dont run out of souls any time soon to peddle the shamanism of your choice.
I have always found hard-sell Christian evangelical types extremely annoying, especially because, when I was growing up in the US, their political views were almost always way over on the fanatical right. Also, I hold Christian missionaries responsible for doing some severe damage to India's cultural heritage, especially in places like the Northeast, where they have wiped out indigenous music, dance, folklore and literature to an alarming degree. So, when I first moved to India in 1998, I didn't have much time or sympathy for the religious Christian minority.
However, after living here for a decade, I have come to think very differently. I now realize that in a place like Orissa, where caste discrimination persists in some of its worst forms, conversion to Christianity represents the only way out for many people from an extremely oppressive social system. You can talk about the sublime philosophy and metaphysics of Hinduism to an Orissa Dalit until you're blue in the face, but what he sees are a bunch of people telling him that it's his god-given station in life to clean up upper-caste people's shit. I'd convert too, you know? In fact I might well be tempted to join a Maoist insurgency.
It's easy for left-leaning American-born Desis, so used to resenting the American Christian right, to get mixed up on this issue. But a hate crime is a hate crime. Please don't try to defend what's happening in Orissa and Gujarat.
I don't think this is just a matter of Hindus vs. Christians either.
Oct 10 India Today
Also from India Today
A few more honest brokers and a little less selective outrage and conspicuous compassion, would do India a whole lot of good.shanthi shanthi shanthi
Class it up, people! Seriously, where did you hang out? I must say I have never rubbed shoulders with such types (though they do sound annoying) . . . .
Suuny@83 said "The example of Hindu ULFA is ignored since it violates the narrative of secessionist movements in India being driven by religious hostility."
Apples and oranges. The ULFA is NOT a religious organisation, nor are it's purported aims establishment of a Hindu state. It is an ethnic movement,though it's origins have a strong link to the large scale Bangladeshi immigration and demographic change in Assam http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/3/3/1/3/p33134_index.html.
Palate cleanser@84 said "dont worry, india's aggressive population replenishment program will ensure that you dont run out of souls any time soon to peddle the shamanism of your choice."-
Huh? I am not into spreading the good news, dude.
If the core issue is "forced" conversions, even then I don't understand what the problem is. If someone is "bribed" with rice and dahl to convert from one religion to the next and they do so to fill their bellies, so what? Why are these Hindus getting their chaddis in a twist? Similarly, if someone then wants to "re-convert" back to Hinduism, so be it. I really, really, really don't get what the big deal over conversion is, no matter how it's done.
88 · Lupus Solitairus said
oh, i thought your last sentence was advocating exactly that....
for all those here who protest loudly, what is the immorality of (uncoerced) conversion?
89 · Soca Chutney Mix said
imbalance in private financial prowes